No Coverage for Financial Firm that Invested Clients’ Money in Ponzi Scheme

A securities firm sought coverage under a professional liability policy for claims by customers that suffered losses on real estate investment vehicles. The Panel for the Second Appellate District in California found that the policyholder was not entitled to coverage because the “application exclusion” in the firm’s policy bars coverage for the claims asserted, as the policyholder did not disclose the facts of the claims against it to the insurer in its application.

The claimants brought suit, asserting that the policyholder failed to properly vet …

Continue Reading